Funkyflash5 wrote:I'm also in the "just started mic'ing up" stage, .....

My approach has been to mostly find mics that can do several things well, making sure that I've got enough to have something adequate for everything, and buying them all used. At this point, the only mics I bought new were the pair of LA120s. I've got the backup of my friend with a bigger locker, that if there's something I need for a bit, like LDCs for vocal overdubs, I can borrow it.

Sounds like a pretty sensible way to start to me.

Just remember that a microphone is mature technology and good ones last for decades - so buy wisely and spend the maximum yo can afford on mics - that way you won't have to keep buying again. :thumbup:

John Willett wrote:You mean a copy - a clone is exactly the same as the original, a copy isn't.

I'm not convinced the definition of those terms is that exact (if you'll pardon the pun)... The Oxford English dictionary defines Clone as: A person or thing regarded as an exact copy of another and Copy as: A thing made to be similar or identical to another...

So a Clone is an exact Copy... and a Copy could be identical like a Clone :-)

The point is that people use the terms interchangeably and context is crucial as either could mean an exact, identical device or something that barely resembles the original but shares some desirable key characteristics. For example, people talk about 'Hammond Clones' all the time, yet the clones all use entirely different technology and few even look vaguely similar!

H

Hugh, what's your desert island mic? I mean if you could only have just one microphone, which would you choose?

Hmmm... that would be a tough call.

A Shure Beta57 can do pretty much everything tolerably well, doesn't need phantom power, and would survive desert island conditions...

But if I had phantom power available it would be a toss-up between a Neumann KM84 and (slightly cheating here because it's a stereo mic) a Neumann SM69FET.

...But then I also really love my Royer active ribbons, and my Sennheiser MKH, and my Gefell M930s, and my Soundfield ST450-2, and my DPA 4060Cores, and... and...

:ugeek:

To be fair, since you’re imaging that there’s electrical power in that desert island, I dont see why we shouldnt be considering phantom as well :lol:

Hugh Robjohns wrote:

John Willett wrote:You mean a copy - a clone is exactly the same as the original, a copy isn't.

I'm not convinced the definition of those terms is that exact (if you'll pardon the pun)... The Oxford English dictionary defines Clone as: A person or thing regarded as an exact copy of another and Copy as: A thing made to be similar or identical to another...

So a Clone is an exact Copy... and a Copy could be identical like a Clone :-)

The point is that people use the terms interchangeably and context is crucial as either could mean an exact, identical device or something that barely resembles the original but shares some desirable key characteristics. For example, people talk about 'Hammond Clones' all the time, yet the clones all use entirely different technology and few even look vaguely similar!

H

I know that people do seem to use the two interchangeably - but saying "close" does seem to imply a product equal to the original, and very few "clones" seem to be fully equal.

That's why I prefer to say "copy".

There are a very few companies that try to make exact copies of discontinued mics - FLEA for example - and I am happy with using "clone" for these types as they are very close to the original - and you pay the price for the quality.

John Willett wrote:That's why I prefer to say "copy".

Hang on -- you're confusing me now. :D I can't cope with this stress on a Sunday afternoon!

John Willett wrote:...a clone is exactly the same as the original, a copy isn't.

John Willett wrote:...very few "clones" seem to be fully equal

:?

Hugh Robjohns wrote: :D I can't cope with this stress on a Sunday afternoon!

:mrgreen:

All I was really trying to say was that I am very weary of the word "clone", as it implies that the copy is fully equal to the original - whereas, in most cases, it isn't.

That's all. :thumbup:

And the Sharks with the frickin lasers.... :bouncy:

Hugh Robjohns wrote:Hmmm... that would be a tough call.

A Shure Beta57 can do pretty much everything tolerably well, doesn't need phantom power, and would survive desert island conditions...

This is interesting. You'd take it over dynamics like a Beyer M201 or M88, or a Sennheiser MD421 / 441, for instance? I've never used the Beta57 much, only on a few live gigs, and never given it much consideration... but now I'm intrigued!

The M201 is a fabulous mic indeed,, but I'd be upset by seeing it get scratched and ruined by the sand, and the MD421 is a great mic ruined by a stupid clamp that annoys and frustrates me every time I use it! :-) I just think the 57 (orig or beta) would cope better, and I'd be less upset if it got damaged!

Hugh Robjohns wrote:... the MD421 is a great mic ruined by a stupid clamp that annoys and frustrates me every time I use it! :-)

Actually I LIKE the clamp on the MD 421.

It locks in and holds the mic. safely in any position - if the mic. is hand-held there are no protruding bits. It's a much more elegant solution than having a big fat traditional type of clip that would not hold the mic. safely when pointing downwards (eg: for a saxophone).

It's easy to put on and remove and I like the design very much. :thumbup:

But my mic. body and clip do come from the 1970s (or 80s) and they may have made them better back then. ;)

I'm really surprised that you like the mount for the MD421.

We have four MD421s and I rarely used them because I would get frustrated with the mount, so I'd go and grab something else, usually a Beta57 (for drums) or a 441 (for trumpet or trombone).

We got some new Rycote mounts, and I've rediscovered the MD421s, I use them on most of my Jazz recordings these days.

Back on point, my must have microphones would probably include an AKG c422, or pairs of DPA 4006s and Neumann TLM 193s.

John Willett wrote:Actually I LIKE the clamp on the MD 421.

I knew somebody must! ;-)

It locks in...

...and most struggle to figure out how to release it!

if the mic. is hand-held there are no protruding bits.

There aren't on any other handheld mic either. ;-)

It's a much more elegant solution than having a big fat traditional type of clip...

I get what they were trying to do, but the fact that no other manufacturer adopted a similar idea suggests it wasn't really that elegant or practical...

...that would not hold the mic. safely when pointing downwards (eg: for a saxophone).

I've used lots of other mics on saxophones, and can't think of any that have fallen out of their clip! I take the point in principle, but I've never found it a sufficient problem to make me wish every mic had a 421-style clip! Quite the reverse in fact...

I like the design very much.

That balances my loathing of it nicely, then! :-D